State pension changes?

seven-day-weekend

Errata wrote: »

Has anyone gained the faintest glimmer from today's chitter chatter what the plan is for changes to the SRP?

Will it mean that those already retired and not eligible for PC, but who may be on less than the basic of £97 pw will be second class citizens compared to those who will retire on the new flat rate of £140/155/a bit more than that ?

Yes unfortunately, that is what it means. I will remain on my £104 a week (on today's rates) and my husband who reaches retirement age in 2014 will get £117. because we do not qualify for Pension Credit. We will have paid NI for about 85 years between us, whereas those who have not paid anything will get this £140 a week.

Not fair.

(edited to add: we are Baby Boomers, born in 1949 and 1950).

mumps

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Yes unfortunately, that is what it means. I will remain on my £104 a week (on today's rates) and my husband who reaches retirement age in 2014 will get £117. because we do not qualify for Pension Credit. We will have paid NI for about 85 years between us, whereas those who have not paid anything will get this £140 a week.

Not fair.

(edited to add: we are Baby Boomers, born in 1949 and 1950).

There are losers on both sides. I have been caught by two changes to retirement age so I might get more pension but waiting five more years to get it. I would love the chance to take my pension at 60 as I originally expected to, even the second retirement age for me of round 63 sounds reasonable but no now going to be 65ish.

Actually I don't think I will get much extra anyway as my SSP will take my pension to around £150 anyway. Oh well, as my kids seem to be planning to still be at university well into my 60s I don't think I can afford to retire anyway.

seven-day-weekend

mumps wrote: »

There are losers on both sides. I have been caught by two changes to retirement age so I might get more pension but waiting five more years to get it. I would love the chance to take my pension at 60 as I originally expected to, even the second retirement age for me of round 63 sounds reasonable but no now going to be 65ish.

Actually I don't think I will get much extra anyway as my SSP will take my pension to around £150 anyway. Oh well, as my kids seem to be planning to still be at university well into my 60s I don't think I can afford to retire anyway.

Yes. I am glad to say I was one of the last to get my pension at 60 (qualified in January 2010). BUT I also had to have 39 years' worth of contributions.

Swings and roundabouts, I suppose.

uk1

I don't think this is yet a "done deal". As I understand it there's currently around 10m pensioners? I know that around 1.7m don't claim benefits to which they are entitled. Yesterdays news was largely about the NHS, but when the penny drops and I think the pensioners will hit the streets - particularly as the earliest the change is likely - say April 2015 - is the month before the next election is due. There is also a particular group of women who are not only losing state retirement age by up to 24 months - there's a real chance that many will retire a month or two before the higher rate emerges. This double whammy will strike many as totally unacceptable.

In the end there will be an acceptance and welcoming that the single tier pension is right - but there will be a debate about fairness and the precipice nature of having a single date introduction of this. If it's fair for a male who reaches say 65 in say April 2016 and made 30 years NI copntributions to receive £150 per week - how can it be fair for someone a month younger who has made 44 years contribtuions to receive say £110 per week? The avoidance of this core issue in some of the interviews and the changing of the subject to "current pensioners wil get pensions linked to earnings" shows that "they" recognise there's a problem they can't answer.

In my situation the NI kept badgering me that there were some years gaps of full contributions for my wife and I and that if I "made them up " we'd get a bigger pension for us both. They produced detailed forecasts showing "before" and "after". We had been starting a business and paid the lower contributions but I struggled at the time and we sacrificed - but I found the cash and paid up several £'000s. The moment I'd bought the NI history up to 44 years for me and 39 for my wife they announced that 30 would now do and I can't have the cash back - it was completely wasted cash. In a commercial environment it would be thought of as fraud or "pension misselling". But this is of course the government and we were told to "go away". Now both my wife and I will retire later than planned and we will not receive as much as people born a few days or a month or few months later and who have contributed much less and who presumably will live a few minutes or hours longer!

I think that whilst this change will be welcomed in principle - when you see a few older pensioners on the street - perhaps the Labour party will see this as their real opportunity and commit themselves to bringing all pensioners into the single tier scheme if they win the election. If they do - they will be guaranteed an election win irrespective of the voting formula we eventually vote in. The last election was decided in a handful of seats by a few thousand swing voters and our MPs fully understand that.

roddydogs

Dont forget also, the amount of "stamps" has been reduced to 30 yrs from 39 yrs, and now their proposing that women who stopped paying the stamp to have kids will also get the new pension in full.........then they add its going to be "Cost Neutral"!

Oldernotwiser

Errata wrote: »

It will indeed make it a two tier system. Those pensioners who will be on the lower tier will be those who saw very hard times as children during WW2 and in the 40's, whilst the baby boomers will be quids in.

Most true baby boomers will have already retired. You'll need to have been born in the 60s to benefit from the changes.

ceridwen

...and I'm still wondering whether (if I get the new flat-rate pension) I will find they have taken my SERPS pension away - ie in order to make sure that I pay for my own apparent "pay increase".

As SERPS is a "job pension" and not a "State pension" as such - ie it just gets tagged onto the State Pension, but has come about because one has paid "pension contributions" from a job to get it - then we should all still receive whatever SERPS we are due for ON TOP OF the State Flat Rate Pension (£140 equivalent per week).

EDIT: Has anyone established yet whether we will still get our Winter Fuel Allowance and Free Bus Pass?

uk1

My understanding is that if you get the new higher payment - then serps is "included" and the specific question about other payments was asked yesterday but an answer was avoided. We were told - I believe - that these "higher earners" were amongst the losers.

I think you'll find thjat they will feel that the new payment includes some or all of the ad-hoc payments - it's all about making it simpler - and I presume they'll try and cut it off for pre-change pensioners as well - but then be forced to allow it to remain as a "concession".

mumps

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Yes. I am glad to say I was one of the last to get my pension at 60 (qualified in January 2010). BUT I also had to have 39 years' worth of contributions.

Swings and roundabouts, I suppose.

I already have 42 years contributions and will have 50 years when I retire.

Errata

It looks like the devil will be in the detail. The green paper should have the details, which can be amended before the white paper is published. I have no idea when the green paper will be published, does anyone know?
Perhaps we should take a leaf out of the 'protestors' book and have a sit-in/knit-in at Fortnums? Or Marks
Have to say, a second class SRP for some seems so bizarre I'm having difficulty in accepting that's the gov's intention.